Today, Steve Jobs announced at the WWDC Keynote that Apple will be slowly switching to Intel processors over the next few years. I'm not sure exactly what the switch entails, and how much extra work it'll be for developers, but I wonder how much this will affect Accordance. I recall it being a significant pain moving Accordance from 68K to PPC.

Once you've had time to digest the news of Apple/Intel merge, could someone (preferably a programmer) at Oaktree give us your thoughts? I would think this announcement would be HUGE, and I am sure there is much yet to understand. Blogs and message boards of small software developers are already filling up with various thoughts and concerns. For example:

I know the easy response from developers like Oaktree will be "our program will still run just fine using Rosetta" so don't worry. But, in reality, that may or may not be the case. Speed and compatibility issues may very well be a big factor.

The statement by Jobs that "cocoa applications will need a few modifications, and carbon (i.e. Accordance) a few more" could prove to be *very* scary. I imagine Accordance was built using Code Warrior, and could/will require a lot more than a "few modifications."

You have said elsewhere ( http://www.accordanc...hp?showtopic=99 ) that a cocoa rewrite of Accordance would take a couple of years to produce (I assume you mean from scratch), and therefore is out of the question. It appears that the clock has started on x86 based processor applications, and there's a time limit of a year to a year and a half.

And, of course, the obvious question which follows: if you do a re-write for a OS X x86 program, won't Accordance then become a PC application in the end?

1. The next six months will be hard on apple, sales wise. I expect the first x86 Mac to be announced at Jan Mac World, and then released three weeks later.

This first Mac will, if C|Net is correct, an iBook or miniMAC. I suspect the PowerBook will be there right away also. I had been waiting for the G5 and now will wait for the iNtel PowerBook.

2. I suspect this has not been a "just in case" group. I have been of the opinion, for awhile, that Apple was waiting for the "right" time and this seems to be it. I think this was plan A all along.

3. There have been many transitions in Apple's history. The first major one was going from MAC OS 6 to MAC OS 7. At that time I was working for Symantec and remember it well. Apple managed that one well. The other two Steve-O hit well on today. The transom from 68K to PowerPC, I was working for Apple then and it was hard. And the transition from 9 to X. I think the hardest was from 6 to 7, why? because Apple really did not have a clue.

I think this transition will be so easy it is going to be gross. IF Apple lives up to what Steve-O promised today, I think they could be ready to go today. I am almost surprised that Apple was not releasing the new iNtel macmini today. He did not because we have to absorb the process. Not to mention the whole manufacturing would have released some kind of notice.

4. The bad news... Mac programs will not run on Windows and visa versa. Each need there own APIs to function. Something to check out though is www.winehq.org. This will also allow virtual PC to run well on Macintosh. Finally, I will get rid of that (this is where I would like to swear but alas I don't) virus ridden, adware / spyware (68 new ones this week) ridden, flea infested machine my wife has that runs the OS from Redmond. She keeps Windoze from one reason, a dress making program. Drives me batty and make want to iScream.

I am sure that www.winehq.org will port this ASAP to iNetl Macintosh and we can run Window programs without all the hassles. Or at least my wife can run virtual PC and keep it off the net and run Safari to browse the web.

I personally cannot wait for this new machine. This will be the best transition and smoothest ever. The bad news is going to be all the upgrades I have to do. Not to mention I doubt that AppleWorks will be moving.... I will finally have to break down and use Pages.

As I said to the worry warts this weekend and earlier today. Steve is not going to tank the company on a whim. He is the best at what he does.

As the best tagline I have seen this weekend says. "A computer without Windows is like chocolate cake without mustard."

In the short term (a couple years), this doesn't affect Accordance. It will run fine with Rosetta. From the Universal Binary Guidlines:

Rosetta does not run the following:

Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9

Code written specifically for AltiVec

Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane

Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor

Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions

Kernel extensions

Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can't be translated

None of these apply to Accordance.However, it is true that Accordance is not compiled in Xcode, and the writing is now on the wall for OakTree... they're going to eventually bite the bullet and bring it into Xcode in order to release a Universal Binary. Still, none of this comes even close to either the Carbonization from OS 9 to OS X or a complete rewrite in Cocoa.I go into a few implications in my blog.

After reading reports from quite a few Mac resources, things really look great, in my opinion. Apps like Accordance will run great on Intel Macs using the built-in, transparent Rosetta translator. It's nothing like running apps in Classic emulation... in those cases, one in emulating an entire OS... but here we're just talking about translating calls from the application directly.

And which is more, I listened to a few Mac developer conversations, and my guess is that it'll be a piece of cake for the Accordance folks to get it to compile into the new universal binary that will run natively on both the older PPC's and the newer Intel chips by the time that Apple has completely switched, which is until the end of 2007 anyhoo.

After reading reports from quite a few Mac resources, things really look great, in my opinion. Apps like Accordance will run great on Intel Macs using the built-in, transparent Rosetta translator.

Still not convinced on the "easiness" nor the "greatness" of Accordance running under Rosetta. As I said in my previous post, this is the easy/quick answer, but there is still a lot to learn. Many factors will play into the ease/efficiently of an application running in emulation. In addition, in the BEST case it should be understood:

After reading reports from quite a few Mac resources, things really look great, in my opinion. Apps like Accordance will run great on Intel Macs using the built-in, transparent Rosetta translator.

Still not convinced on the "easiness" nor the "greatness" of Accordance running under RosettaTom

It does not matter, the search engine built into ths wonderful Accordancewas not meant to be available by the Mac OS

if that was allowed the software would be easily hacked. We had developed some software that did wonderful seraches of the entire Bible was Online via BBS ... on an OS2 sixteen ports ... started project in 1993 and the computer was stolen in 1998 - could have re-built but found part of our software had been hacked

[ this was within Europe ]

all we are saying here ACCORDANCE is well done, and there MUST be some degree of protectionfor the folk whom developed it.

Interests:Accordance development, writing, spending time with my wife and five kids

Accordance Version:9.x

Posted 10 June 2005 - 09:07 AM

Someone on the Christian Mac Users Groups e-mail list recently asked about our reactions to the Intel announcement. Here is a copy of my response. Hopefully it will answer some of the questions on this forum as well.

At this point we've got more questions about the Intel transition than we've got answers. We're eager to find out how well Accordance runs on Rosetta and what exactly will be required to create universal binaries of Accordance. After transitioning with Apple from 68K to PowerPC, then transitioning from the classic Mac OS to OS X (you'll find installers for all three on our web-site: 68K, PowerPC classic, and OS X), we're certainly not thrilled at the prospect of making yet another transition. After all, there's a reason it's called the Reality-Distortion Field: we've found that none of these transitions has been as easy as Jobs promised it would be! Nevertheless, we're committed to keeping Accordance current, and we'll do whatever we need to do to accomplish that goal.

Speaking personally, I think this is a good move for Apple, and one which they're making at the right time. They're far enough into the OS X migration that the pain of losing Classic on Intel machines will be minimal for most folks. Likewise, the frustration with Windows is reaching a critical mass these days, and Microsoft seems unable to provide a meaningful solution, so the time is ripe for Apple to challenge them. Releasing for Intel and removing one more barrier to switching has the potential to win Apple some substantial market share gains for the first time in a long time.

I guess it's that hope which helps to minimize the frustration of having to make one more transition. Remember, we're Mac fans, and we've stuck it out with Apple for the past fifteen years or more. We want to see Apple succeed, and if this is what it takes for them to get there, we'll do our part to keep supporting the Mac platform.

Interests:Accordance development, writing, spending time with my wife and five kids

Accordance Version:9.x

Posted 10 June 2005 - 10:04 AM

Still not convinced on the "easiness" nor the "greatness" of Accordance running under Rosetta. As I said in my previous post, this is the easy/quick answer, but there is still a lot to learn. Many factors will play into the ease/efficiently of an application running in emulation. In addition, in the BEST case it should be understood:

I think at this point it would be good to cut through all the hype and speculation on the Intel transition and get a little bit of perspective.

1. At this point, we don't know how well Accordance will run under Rosetta. If performance is unacceptable, that will obviously motivate us to release universal binaries as quickly as possible. But realistically, Accordance has NEVER required the latest hardware to run quickly, so it will probably run quite well under Rosetta.

2. Yes, Rosetta is emulating a G3 processor, but that has more to do with the processor architecture than with the processor's actual performance. In other words, Altivec and other G4/G5 dependent technologies are not supported. Since Accordance has never relied on those technologies, the fact that Rosetta emulates a G3 poses no real disadvantage.

3. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Accordance does NOT have an Intel-native version ready the day Apple ships its first Intel Mac. Who does that really matter to? Only the person who is actually going to buy an Intel Mac at that time. I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not going to be the first to buy an Intel Mac as soon as it becomes available! I'll let other people help Apple get the kinks worked out before I commit my own limited funds.

Does this mean that we're not hoping to be Intel native by that time? Of course not. My point is simply that everyone seems to be so worried about this right now, even though they might not personally be in the market for an Intel Mac for at least a couple of years.

So unless you're planning to get an Intel Mac by June of next year, don't worry about it. We're committed to being Intel native as soon as we possibly can. Hopefully, even the earliest adopters won't have to run Accordance under Rosetta, but until we know more, we can't make any promises.

One group that will be moving more quickly to the iNtel will be those using powerbooks and iBooks.

Many of us had been waiting for the G5 powerbook (that will never see the light of day becasue it will make its own light from burning up). And so the wait for the next gen of make equipment has been waiting for us.

I hope to have my money ready day one.

OS9- X: Accordance was the last program that I had waited for before using X full time. I have not used OS9 since Accordance came out for X.

Rosseta: I suspect that Accordance will run ok under iNtel Mac. (say what do we call them now... I am not to sure: mac- IN - tel or what). Of course I hope that you do get to borrow one on the Macintel machines to verify this before I buy.

From what I read so far, MacOS X on probably ONLY 64 bit Intel chips and ONLY Apple branded Intel boxes which can also dual boot Windows.

And Apple never said they wouldn't use any PPC chips ever. Fat binaries straddle both markets.

Since Apple has had each update of MacOS X running for five years on Intel hardware, this looks to be an easy transition. I've read that even the Unsanity haxie utilities are high level not low level APIs.http://www.unsanity....cgi?entry_id=24

I suspect first Apple Intel products, MacMini and laptops to be out end of 2005 or announced at MacWorld 2006. I'm guessing this change will happen faster than expected. Test Intel machines already available for developers ...